The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not store goods in front of the victim’s store, and installed a seat board at a distance of not less than one meter before the store, and thus, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the fact that the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s store business.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are recognized.

Since 10 years ago, the defendant has installed a sales facility and performed funeral services in front of a store owned by the victim.

At the time of the first commencement of funeral services, the part of the above store was the wall of the building and the road that the defendant possessed was not owned by the victim, and thus the defendant did not pay the difference to the victim separately.

In 2011, the victim changed the structure of the wall part of the building in question and established the store in this case. Around December 2011, the victim entered into a lease agreement with the defendant and the above store.

After that, the Defendant occupied the instant store and the front road, and performed funeral services.

The Defendant paid a premium for eight months after the conclusion of a lease agreement. However, the Defendant refused to pay the rent on the ground that the injured party does not comply with the promise to prevent the use of the forest and install the sewerage in front of the store, and there was a dispute with the injured party. Ultimately, around April 2013, the said lease agreement was terminated as the Defendant took the store in this case.

Even after the termination of the lease contract, the Defendant continued possession of the road in front of the instant store as before, and continued to store the styp boxes, etc. owned by the Defendant in front of the entrance of the instant store.

On the other hand, on August 22, 2014, the victim's store of this case to F.